Re^3: Open sourcing perlmonks

Of course you won't. It's much easier to throw out vague complaints without actually doing anything about them.

No, I don't mention personal websites, because that would be silly. I probably shouldn't have brought them up in my OP.

I haven't seen a flood of people knocking down the doors submitting patches to improve things.

I see that as a failure in the system. Since this site is very popular, why isn't there that flood?

and disappear a week later

See above.

Comment on Re^3: Open sourcing perlmonks

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Open sourcing perlmonks by chromatic (Archbishop) on May 29, 2005 at 04:27 UTC
Since this site is very popular, why isn't there that flood? I posted a link to my "Myths Open Source Developers Tell Ourselves" article earlier in this discussion.My thesis is that's not how open source works. There are over 75 members of pmdev. How many patches do you expect in a a week? How many people use Perl 5? Do you know how many people submit patches to that in a week? How about to Parrot? How about to Pugs? The answer is "Fewer than you might believe." Sure, having the source open makes this possible and easier, but I don't know that I necessarily trust a patch from someone unwilling to stick around long enough to earn a decent reputation and then ask for access to the code. Maybe that policy has prevented a couple of really great potential contributors from doing good things -- I don't know. I do think it's positive in enforcing at least a minimum level of responsibility and accountability, though, and I don't believe there has ever been a huge desire for people to do more work themselves.	[reply]
Re^5: Open sourcing perlmonks by jacques (Priest) on May 29, 2005 at 05:01 UTC
Do you know how many people submit patches to that in a week? How about to Parrot? How about to Pugs? I think that's a poor comparison. I would expect more people to lend a hand in web development than let's say in Parrot or Pugs.	[reply]